Does updating the registrar entries of a XEP mandate a version block
stpeterhas joined
stpeterhas left
flow
pep., do you update the registrar entries without a textual change of the XEP?
stpeterhas joined
pep.
Well depending on the XEP, it might just make sense to only update the registrar..
pep.
I did update the sole exapmle here though
pep.
So probably at least requires a patch release
flow
pep., which change are we discussing?
pep.
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949/files
flow
ohh that's a good one
flow
I first ask myself if data form registry entries also come with <required/>
flow
so right now, one could argue all the existing fields in the registry submission of xep157 are optional
flow
and the new field you add is also optional
flow
so it is a backwards compatible change
flow
it would clearly require a version block if it was a backwards incompatible change
flow
but nevertheless it basically adds a new thing (akin to attribute element4) on the protocol layer, so i'd say a version block would be required
flow
even if it would not be required it would be nice
flow
plus it would certainly be nice if you also extend the example
flow
and even add a textual description for that field
flow
because I ask myself if I could parse the text in that field as uri
flow
i.e., if this field is required to contain only valid URIs
flow
hmm the last one is probably unrelated to your concrete change
flow
oh, there is no trace of <required/> in the xsf registry, so either it is not expected to be included in the registration submission, which I would find strange, or, we there was simply never a required field registered
pep.
so.. version block? :p
stpeterhas left
pep.
What do you mean "extend the example"? Don't I already do that?
flow
pep., ahh sorry, for some reason I only saw the diff in the registry submission
pep.
hmm, how do I even make sure it contains valid URIs.. That would be good to have yes
flow
pep., well you could specify it in text, idally we would extend xep122 for that, but that can be done later on
flow
uh wait
flow
xep122 has support for xs:anyURI
pep.
So how would that work? Can I say that in the PR?
flow
hehe, that's probalby newland. similar to <required/> I can't find registry entries with xep122 annotations. But that doesn not mean that it should not go in the registry, it probably just means that nobody bothered or did it
flow
i personally think it belongs in the registry information, but not in the example, as the example shows a data form of type 'result'
flow
and you have the xep122 annotations usually in data forms of type 'form'✎
flow
and you have the xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'✎✏
flow
and xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form' ✏